Serious Fascism discussion - LITERALLY HITLER!!

[Spunt]

Fascism!

This thread is to discuss the most-abused political term of the last 20 years. Many geological eras ago, when I was in academia (christ I'm old), I studied Fascism and Nazism under one of the world's top academics in the field of study of the extreme right. Amongst serious academics (not untenured Rutgers attention whores) the discussion of what Fascism is and what we should do about it is very, very different to the screaming and yelling you find on Twitter.

So this thread is for serious, non-stupid discussion of Fascism (and, as I'll explain, specifically "Fascism", not "Nazism"). There will be big, spergy walls of text because goddammit I did a thesis on this shit and I want to sperg out about it, but I'll spoiler most of it for everyone's sake. I don't want my personal takes to overwhelm the thread, I want to know other people's opinions, not just have an argument about whether mine are correct (or at least I don't want that to be the focus of the thread, but feel free to call me out if I'm wrong).

I hope we can have a proper discussion on the Farms about Fascist without TDS-addled morons calling each other Turbo-Hitler every other post. Or maybe just rate me optimistic on that one?

What is Fascism?

This is the big one. The word "Fascism" is an Essentially Contested term, meaning there is no consensus amongst academics as to what it means, or even what methodology you approach to define it. That's why it gets appropriated into everyone's lexicon as a generic term for "right wing ideas I don't like". My personal massive walls of sperging below:

Spoiler: How do you define Fascism?

In my view, the best way to try to define something like "Fascism" is to examine regimes that were, by their own admission, Fascist, and see what makes them alike, in both what they professed their beliefs to be and what they actually did (there are often huge gaps between the two), and how they may differ from other right-wing regimes that were not self-described Fascists. Given the rather large gaps between what Fascist movements say they will do when in power and what they actually do when in power, we will have to exclude openly Fascist movements that never reached power, such as Mosley's BUF, and we will also have to exclude Nazi puppet states like Quisling Norway or Vichy France because they were not in charge of their own ideology.

That leaves us with only two regimes that ever, freely and openly, described themselves as "Fascist" - Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany. Whilst many regard, for example, Franco's regime as Fascist, Franco himself never adopted that label. Ditto Imperial Japan. That doesn't mean that these two regimes are automatically not Fascist, but it means we will have to adopt our definition of them first then come back to them

So, to discover what the actual characteristics of Fascist regimes are, we need to see what characteristics Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had in common (which is interesting because they were very different in many ways), that the majority of more normal Nationalist movements might not have. The latter has to be more flexible, otherwise we risk excluding other regimes from "Fascist-ness" by definition, so the commonalities will be of greater weight in the argument. So...

Spoiler: What are the characteristics of Fascism?

I'm not going to re-write my entire academic history here. This is a summary of what, in my view, Mussolini's and Hitler's regimes had in common that makes them stand out from other right-wing movements:

1 - They are openly against democracy. Both Hitler and Mussolini believed that democracy was corrupt and weak, and morally inferior. This is actually very unusual amongst dictatorships, believe it or not, because most dictatorships (both Left and Right) hold sham elections or put "Democratic Republic" in their name to give a veneer of democratic legitimacy. This indicates that these regimes see a democratic mandate, however false, as being something worth having, and organising sham elections and even changing the name of the country to achieve. Fascists don't give a fuck and openly talk about democracy being degenerate. This does not mean that they refuse to enter democratic politics (both Hitler and Mussolini had MPs at the time they seized power) but both made clear their plans to abolish democracy from the start.

2 - They have detailed theories of racial purity that are couched in atavistic myths. This goes beyond just being racist, or even wanting an ethno-state for your own people. Hitler and Mussolini saw their ancestors as the Aryan and Roman supermen of a mythological past, and wanted to recreate that by actively purifying bloodlines, they would rise to their naturally dominant roles in the world. These ideas were not about "preserving" bloodlines, these are about establishing superiority and dominance.

3 - They see violence as inherently good, in itself, to purify the soul of men. Both Hitler and Mussolini believed that men (and only men) could only be shaped by war, and that war itself was necessary for greatness and the building of a man's character. This is different from other extremist movements just endorsing violence as a means to an end. Fascists believe, much like the Thuggee cult, that violence and killing strengthens the soul on a spiritual level. For the Fascist, a perpetual state of war strengthens and purifies the body politic - more on that in the next point.

4 - They are statist, collectivist movements despite being on the right. The "Socialism" in "National Socialism" does have a meaning, and in this case it is a belief that the state and its people are one entity. For the Fascist, all people, not just the armed forces, but workers, women, children, are all part of the dominant and pure machine of the people-state. Individual identity is supplanted with the State identity. Everyone is the state, the state is everyone, the people move with one purpose.

5 - The economy is a chaotic, corporatist mess designed to serve the military. Economic ideas and policies under Hitler and Mussolini were in a constant state of flux. Neither man had much interest in them. By and large, the existing large engineering companies that existed in those countries became, as per point 4 above, arms of the state. When those arrangements failed to produce enough armaments, they used slave labour, to the point that towards the end of the war the German economy in particular was almost dependent on it. Both Mussolini and Hitler dropped their much-trumpeted welfare programs when they started diverting too much money from the military.

6 - Fascists are imperialists and expansionists. Whilst it's debated as to whether Hitler had globalist intentions, he certainly wanted "Lebensraum" for the German people. Mussolini's Pre-WWII military adventures in Ethiopia and Libya were motivated less by an economic need (especially Ethiopia, which had no useful resources to speak of) than by a belief that Italy should have an empire because they were a superior race. Whilst many other regimes, Left and Right, have been imperialist and expansionist, this is worth noting because many contemporary extreme-right movements are very isolationist in wanting to expel foreigners but not expand their borders.

You will note that genocide and the Holocaust are NOT on that list. This is because Mussolini wasn't really very interested in it. There is no "final solution" rhetoric in his speeches before his alliance with Hitler, and his participation in the Holocaust was half-hearted at best. Whilst he was undoubtedly a bit of an anti-semite, he had no interest in the extermination of "inferior races", at most he wanted to subjugate them in a colonialist fashion. Industrialised genocide is very much a Nazi phenomenon, not a generic Fascist one.

So, whether you agree with my methodology and conclusions in defining Fascism, or whether you have your own, the next question is - are any contemporary movements, people or regimes "Fascist" using whatever definition you want to use. Below I've looked at three leaders/regimes frequently called "Fascist", and measure them against my 6 criteria:

Spoiler: Donald Trump

1 - Anti-democracy - NO - Trump has never expressed any hostility to the democratic process nor any desire to abolish it.
2 - Mythological theories of racial purity - NO - I do think Trump is a bit racist, but he has never talked about the ancient rights of the Orange race to control the globe.
3 - Violence as purification - NO - I've never seen any rhetoric to this end. In fact he appears to be opposed to the peculiarly American "cult of the soldier" by mocking war veterans like John McCain.
4 - Extreme collectivism - NO - He's a billionaire for fuck's sake, it doesn't get any more individualist than that.
5 - Chaotic, pro-military economics - PARTLY - The US economy is, and long has been, heavily tilted towards the miltiary-industrial complex, but this is not Trump's doind particularly.
6 - Expansionism - NO - Trump wants to withdraw from NATO and build border walls, not conquer Mexico. Trump is an isolationist.

Fascism Score - 0.5 Hitlers/6

Spoiler: North Korea under the Kim dynasty

1 - Anti-democracy - PARTLY - The DPRK has Democracy right in its name! Whilst of course there is no real democracy in NK and it is a hereditary dictatorship, they hold sham elections, showing that the state's ideology does to some extent value the perception of democratic legitimacy.
2 - Mythological theories of racial purity - YES - Juche propaganda portrays the Koreans as a chosen people (read Myers' "The Cleanest Race") with a unique ancestry and genetic purity.
3 - Violence as purification - YES - likewise, Juche propaganda lionises military service and the killing of Korea's enemies
4 - Extreme collectivism - YES - Both internal and external propaganda from DPRK emphasises the one-ness of the NK people and state
5 - Chaotic, pro-military economics - YES - The NK economy is an utter mess with frequent famines and extreme shortages - but they have an active nuclear programme and the biggest military per capita on the planet.
6 - Expansionism - YES - NK makes no secret of its desire to not only forcibly reunite Korea, but also has territorial claims to Japan and Manchuria

Fascism Score - 5.5 Hitlers/6

Spoiler: Vladimir Putin

1 - Anti-democracy - PARTLY - Putin clearly doesn't believe in Democracy, but pays lip service to the idea and Russia has semi-functional democratic structures. At least for now.
2 - Mythological theories of racial purity - NO - Putin's clearly a bit racist, but there is no rhetoric (as far as I am aware) about a historically pure Russian people that needs to be re-built. Russia's sheer size and demographic diversity makes state-endorsed racial theories a risky proposition for any leader.
3 - Violence as purification - PARTLY - Putin certainly likes violent solutions to problems and is often found associating with and glorifying biker gangs, vigilantes and militias, but the rhetoric is lacking.
4 - Extreme collectivism - NO - Putin's an individualist, as seen in his crony capitalism and idealisation of the rugged frontiersman.
5 - Chaotic, pro-military economics - YES - Russia's economy is a corrupt mess, but the military get everything they need.
6 - Expansionism - YES - just ask the Ukraine. The Baltic Republics are right to be nervous too. Putin even used the same causus belli to invade the Crimea that Hitler did to invade the Sudetenland.

Fascism Score - 3 Hitlers/6

Then the biggest question of them all - so what? Why should we bother coming up with a narrow definition of Fascism like I have above? Why not use the usual undergraduate definition of "any opinion I personally disagree with"?

For me the answer is that just as we have to learn from the past, we need to learn to identify new dangers. By comparing new ultra-right movements to the characteristics of historical Fascism, we can learn how they are changing and evolving. We can learn which movements and people are more dangerous than others, and understand the dynamics between them by understanding the differences in their ideology. You can't achieve any of those things by screaming that everyone you don't like is Hitler. If PewDiePie is already a Nazi, then what is Richard Spencer, or Varg Vikernes, or General Pinochet? Abuse of those terms makes study of, and defence against, extremist ideologies harder, not easier.

Besides, I find it interesting. Who else does?

 

[big ol' idiot]

this thread will in no way ever become a shitstorm

 

[Zersetzung]

It makes sense to use the term in the historical sense only. Using it because someone kind of vaguely reminds you of some undefined badness is like referring to every horse you see as a unicorn. Meanwhile you're diluting what should be a specific reference to a specific period of history with a specific ideological and philosophical context.

Otherwise I guess it's a helpful idiot filter that lets you know when you're talking to someone whose political opinions are regurgitated and who doesn't care about their choice of words or their meaning, which tells you they really have nothing to say.

 

[дядя Боря]

this is a great discussion, but beyond comprehension of most people, even more so when we are talking about general public. The world is full of special people who never had or will read history.

 

[HarveyMCR]

Serious fascism died in the 40s. Anyone claiming something today is fascism is deluding themselves into thinking that something they don’t like is the ultimate boogie man, when it’s really just one of the many extensions of human nature that has existed since the start of mankind

 

[Clop]

Your definition is better than mine, I tend to simplify fascism as a linear government that squelches any ideas of deviating from what the fascist in charge has decided. It is a rigid form of government that serves the interests of the leader, not the people. You see it a lot in the Middle-East with extremely wealthy sheikhs who squander fortunes on insanity. The illusion of democracy hardly matters from my point of view since you wouldn't call anything counterfeit even partly the real deal.

Maybe you would argue that a fascist serves the interests of the people who think the same way as their leader does, but I see it more as exploiting other people for your own gain, like a sociopath. To be a fascist you already tend to lack compassion for people who don't think the same as you do, so it doesn't seem like a stretch to think they only see their followers as a means to an end.

 

[Spunt]

Your definition is better than mine, I tend to simplify fascism as a linear government that squelches any ideas of deviating from what the fascist in charge has decided. It is a rigid form of government that serves the interests of the leader, not the people. You see it a lot in the Middle-East with extremely wealthy sheikhs who squander fortunes on insanity. The illusion of democracy hardly matters from my point of view since you wouldn't call anything counterfeit even partly the real deal.

Maybe you would argue that a fascist serves the interests of the people who think the same way as their leader does, but I see it more as exploiting other people for your own gain, like a sociopath. To be a fascist you already tend to lack compassion for people who don't think the same as you do, so it doesn't seem like a stretch to think they only see their followers as a means to an end.

I think what you are describing there is Authoritarianism, rather than Fascism specifically. Your definition would include quite a few left-wing groups and religious fundamentalists that would not be considered Fascist by most people. All Fascists are authoritarians, but not all authoritarians are Fascist. In fact I'd say that ANTIFA, an organisation whose sole purpose is to be as not-Fascist as possible, is authoritarian in the way you are describing but it's a bit of a stretch to call them "Fascists" themselves.

 

[Clop]

I think what you are describing there is Authoritarianism, rather than Fascism specifically. Your definition would include quite a few left-wing groups and religious fundamentalists that would not be considered Fascist by most people. All Fascists are authoritarians, but not all authoritarians are Fascist. In fact I'd say that ANTIFA, an organisation whose sole purpose is to be as not-Fascist as possible, is authoritarian in the way you are describing but it's a bit of a stretch to call them "Fascists" themselves.

That's probably a better word for it. Thank you.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The quickest way to answering the question of what Fascism is, all one has to do is go straight to the horse's mouth, the guy who first coined the term, Benito Mussolini.

Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state.

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

So Fascism is authoritarian, totalitarian, nationalist, collectivist & objectivist, to the point one literally worships the state as their god and afterlife, and live exclusively for it. I don't think INGSOC was this extreme.

 

[MadDamon]

I think what you are describing there is Authoritarianism, rather than Fascism specifically. Your definition would include quite a few left-wing groups and religious fundamentalists that would not be considered Fascist by most people. All Fascists are authoritarians, but not all authoritarians are Fascist. In fact I'd say that ANTIFA, an organisation whose sole purpose is to be as not-Fascist as possible, is authoritarian in the way you are describing but it's a bit of a stretch to call them "Fascists" themselves.

Tbh, fascism is a term with no absolute definition, so is many other political ideas. To you, maybe antifa shouldn't be called a fascist group, but to me, I think they tick all boxes of the traits a real "fascist" has.

1 - Anti-democracy - yes. They fuck people up just because other people have an opinion other than theirs.
2 - Mythological theories of racial purity - yes, if change "racial" to"ideological". They demand other to share their ideas. If one can't meet their standard of some ideology, then they are the enemy and must be beat up. Hell, as many people nowadays base their identity sololy on what they believe in, just like some fascist in Germany based their whole identity on them being Aryan, could we really say that there's any difference between ideological purity of today and racial purity of yesteryear?
3 - Violence as purification - yes. See above.
4 - Extreme collectivism - Maybe? I haven't see any antifa in fight. But as sojus have constant infight of their own, I would not exclude the possibility of it happening in antifa too.
5 - Chaotic, pro-military economics - No. They are chaotic, but they don't have an economy per say.
6 - Expansionism - YES. They want to implant their own ideology into other people, by silencing other voice.

So yeah, I think they are more of a fascist than those who they want to fight.

 

[Spunt]

The quickest way to answering the question of what Fascism is, all one has to do is go straight to the horse's mouth, the guy who first coined the term, Benito Mussolini.



So Fascism is authoritarian, totalitarian, nationalist, collectivist & objectivist, to the point one literally worships the state as their god and afterlife, and live exclusively for it. I don't think INGSOC was this extreme.

Absolutely. The ultra-statism has very few parallels in the modern era and is one of the unique identifiers of Fascism. It's particularly unusual amongst right-wing movements, as we usually associate statist collectivism with the extreme Left.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

5 - Chaotic, pro-military economics - No. They are chaotic, but they don't have an economy per say.

No, they're staunchly anti-establishment and would never support a military. Antifa, from my understanding, are fair-weather anarchists at their core.

 

[Marco Fucko]

Shut up Fascist.

 

[Slap47]

Can somebody explain to me how putting the state before my own interests is a good idea?

It seems to have failed at every point in History.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Tbh, fascism is a term with no absolute definition, so is many other political ideas. To you, maybe antifa shouldn't be called a fascist group, but to me, I think they tick all boxes of the traits a real "fascist" has.

1 - Anti-democracy - yes. They fuck people up just because other people have an opinion other than theirs.
2 - Mythological theories of racial purity - yes, if change "racial" to"ideological". They demand other to share their ideas. If one can't meet their standard of some ideology, then they are the enemy and must be beat up. Hell, as many people nowadays base their identity sololy on what they believe in, just like some fascist in Germany based their whole identity on them being Aryan, could we really say that there's any difference between ideological purity of today and racial purity of yesteryear?
3 - Violence as purification - yes. See above.
4 - Extreme collectivism - Maybe? I haven't see any antifa in fight. But as sojus have constant infight of their own, I would not exclude the possibility of it happening in antifa too.
5 - Chaotic, pro-military economics - No. They are chaotic, but they don't have an economy per say.
6 - Expansionism - YES. They want to implant their own ideology into other people, by silencing other voice.

So yeah, I think they are more of a fascist than those who they want to fight.

I would like to disagree with you on a couple of points.
They do have theories on racial purity, albeit not in the typical form. Their theory works along the lines of "White bad!" You can see this in how they actively work to ostracize white people outside of their group, and how whites within the group subscribe to the "I admit being white makes me evil" mentality.
Additionally, they may not have a pro-military economy, but their goon squads have to be paid somehow. If they're not being paid already, that's a question that'll need to be addressed down the road. The thugs won't do this shit for free. Look at North Korea, or Iran. They keep their military happy to give them a stake in the welfare of the state. If the people rise up against the regime, or if an outside force attempts an invasion, the military will fight all the harder to keep their goodies.
Funnily enough, there is no extreme collectivism that I am aware of. There is the belief that capitalism, the United States, the Magical Orange Man, and all whites are evil, but that is the only uniting belief. Feminists, LGBTWTFABCBBQ, racial demagogues, and all the rest pride themselves in their individuality. Remove the common enemies, and they'll be at each other's throats. Look at the TERFs for an example of this.

 

[Lemmingwise]

For me the answer is that just as we have to learn from the past, we need to learn to identify new dangers. By comparing new ultra-right movements to the characteristics of historical Fascism, we can learn how they are changing and evolving. We can learn which movements and people are more dangerous than others, and understand the dynamics between them by understanding the differences in their ideology. You can't achieve any of those things by screaming that everyone you don't like is Hitler

You might not be able to achieve those things that way, but by god, we're going to try.

 

[Zersetzung]

Can somebody explain to me how putting the state before my own interests is a good idea?

It seems to have failed at every point in History.

Pretty much all states place their interests above that of individuals, though. None of them really care if you'd prefer not to pay taxes, or be drafted and die for them, or take substances or fuck someone or buy land or travel where they don't approve of, or retain your existing property if they declare eminent domain, or operate your own attack helicopter, et cetera.

Meanwhile the actual literal Nazis were pretty successful at what they set out to do, recovering from a crippling economic disaster and not merely rebuilding but establishing a war machine that gave the rest of Europe a run for its money. Losing a war isn't exactly a spontaneous failure of ideology.
And that ideology was in large part modelled on a contemporary perception of the traditions of the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire, who you might be familiar with.

 

[The best and greatest]

I like to define a Fascist as "One who works and advocates for the political, cultural, and economic stratification of society." Its less an overt political system with defining features and more a general philosophic sentiment that society ought be stratified. I feel this is a very clinical and dry view of Fascism. Part of keeping the historic context is to remember just how opposed fascist parties in Europe were to the communists. I've said this before but people define themselves just as much by what they oppose as they do by what they stand for, and ultimately everything has its opposites. Therefor I can think of no better counterpart to the philosophy which advocates that all people be politically culturally and economically equal.

 

[FA 855]

Fascism to me is the merger of state and corporation, intense nationalism and militarism, the silencing of dissent against the state, and viewing the country through the prism of a doctor. Have you noticed the numbers of analogies made by fascism either analogising society as a body or calling enemies vermin, disease, infection.
It's emotionally charged language that appeals to people, that is one reason why Nazism was popular.
All I want to say is that I agree with your scoring.
But.
Fascism in my humble opinion is the wrong word for North Korea, I'd say fascism is a word that is inappropriate for describing the East, kinda like why you wouldn't call Confucianism a religion, because the word is too westernised.
North Korea can be called fascistic, but I really think totalitarian is more appropriate, it isn't descended from Benito Mussolini or any of the descendent philosophies in any overt way, unless Kim secretly hides (DOCTRINE OF FASCISM) under his pillow at night.

 

[Lemmingwise]

One who works and advocates for the political, cultural, and economic stratification of society

Would this make India of yesterday and its caste system a fascist country?